CHAPTER 6

THE ZOO VISITOR:

WHAT VISITORS THINK AND SAY

Victoria, a sun bear at Taronga, extracting food rewards from her enrichment log.

All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions.

Leonardo da Vinci Italian scientist, inventor, artist and mathematician (1452-1519).

231

Both Lars Andersen (1989) and Kenneth J. Polakowski (1989) compared the zoo with

the concept of theatre, where the zoo enclosure represents a stage upon which the animals

(actors) perform for the audience of zoo visitors. In this imaginary situation, the role of the

enclosure was viewed simply as a backdrop against which the animals were displayed. In

looking at these backdrops, visitors formed impressions and so developed their perceptions of

the zoo. As previously indicated, little research has been carried out in Australian zoos to

identify the wide range of viewing behaviours of visitors. Even less work has been carried out

to develop an understanding of the way in which people perceive the different enclosures,

comprehend the needs of animals and appreciate some of the difficulties of providing for

them in captivity.

Human beings are unique in terms of their sensory ability (Robinson, 1989). By using

one or more of their senses, it is possible for humans to increase their understanding and so

develop their perceptions. In humans, the most important of these senses is stereoscopic

vision, particularly since their sense of hearing is relatively limited and their sense of smell is

poor. The perceptions formed by visitors during their visit to the zoo developed as the result

of images created in their minds, images that were shaped and influenced by the aesthetics of

the enclosure. Since it was normal for visitors to draw their own conclusions once they had

viewed an exhibit, the possibility existed that in some circumstances the images formed could

be illusions, false impressions or misapprehensions, with the potential of leading to

misperceptions.

Of the four components of the zoo mission statement, conservation and research relate

mainly to the animals, whilst education and recreation relate to zoo visitors. This research has

already demonstrated that the characteristics of the animals influence the patterns of

behaviour of visitors, particularly since visitors stay longer at the exhibits when the animal is

most active. Studying the thoughts and attitudes of visitors provided useful information,

which assisted with evaluating the zoo in its educational and recreational roles. The previous

chapter explored the patterns of viewing behaviours that were observed as visitors looked at

different animals in the zoo. The work discussed in this chapter evaluated the perceptions

which formed as a result of visitors looking at different animals in the zoo. An appreciation of

the different components of the zoo mission statement was examined. The degree of

satisfaction of visitors with their actual visit and their perceptions of various components

relating to both the enclosures and the animals on display were determined. The different

factors which attracted the attention of visitors and the reasons that some exhibits were more

232

popular than others were analysed, along with the likes and dislikes of visitors towards

different zoo animals and enclosures. In essence, the research reported in this chapter

considered the thoughts of visitors and the factors which affected the attitudes and influenced

the different feelings and viewing patterns displayed by visitors as they looked at animals in

the zoo. The data obtained provided information reflecting the perception and satisfaction of

visitors to the zoo. This section of the research was significant in that it supplied evidence

relating to visitors’ thoughts and perceptions about the zoo and the different enclosures. The

information gleaned from this study should provide valuable assistance to administrators in

the planning and promotion of the zoo and in the management of the visiting public.

6.1 Visitor perception of the Zoo mission statement

In general, mission statements have been used to describe the overall aims and

objectives of an institution, usually in the form of a concise narrative statement. The mission

statements of most zoos reflect a degree of similarity in that they revolve around four basic

components of research, conservation, education and recreation (Appendix). In this regard,

Adelaide and Taronga Zoos were no exception. The mission statement of The Royal

Zoological Society of South Australia includes the words ‘to continue and expand its role in

conservation, education and research on the World’s threatened wildlife’; that of Taronga

aims to ‘demonstrate a meaningful and urgent commitment to wildlife, our natural

environment and the pursuit of excellence in our conservation, recreation and scientific

endeavours … to inspire active and enjoyable learning experiences’. Visitors were asked to

rank the level of importance of each of the four key roles by giving a ranking score with a

maximum of five (5). The means of each of these sets of figures were calculated (Figure 6.1;

Appendix Table 6A).

All four components were ranked highly and there was no significant difference

between the two sets of results. Education and conservation were ranked the most important

of the four components of the zoo mission (mean ranking 4.54), despite the fact that, as

shown in Chapter 4, only 13% of visitors specified that they came for educational purposes,

and less than 1% of respondents made reference to either research or conservational

motivations. Survey responses indicated that education was an assumed quality of the zoo and

was considered important once visitors were actually viewing the exhibit. Parents valued the

zoo visit highly because of the wide range of opportunities presented, giving the possibility of

233

enhancing learning. They considered that it was important to visit the zoo to ‘expose children

to new ideas of the world around them’ (A172), ‘allow children to learn whilst we have a

great day out’ (A263) and allow ‘the children to learn about animals’ (T381). Several

responses indicated that in family groups, children expected to see animals that related to

storybook animals or were well known because of viewing television programmes.

Researchers such as Brown (1973) and Susan Dale Tunnicliffe (1994) have previously

recognised similar responses.

Figure 6.1: Satisfaction ranking: Components of mission statement. Maximum ranking score 5.

Source: Exit survey question 10.

Total 850 surveys (Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400) Reference: Appendix Table 6A.

Although ranked lowest, entertainment was still regarded as important by visitors,

with mean ranking scores of 3.74 at Adelaide and 3.86 at Taronga (Figure 6.1). In both zoos it

was apparent that membership encouraged repeat visiting, particularly with mothers of young

children who recognised the value of potential education for their children; while at the same

time they appreciated the opportunity to enjoy the recreational and entertainment value

offered by the zoo. Family groups considered that their visit to the zoo was an exciting leisure

234

outing, which may well have been related to the fact that many visitors, particularly in

Adelaide, combined their visit with other leisure activities outside the zoo. Tunnicliffe

(1995a) also found that the zoo was regarded as a leisure outing for the family group.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the main motivations given by people for visiting the zoo

revolved around thoughts of recreation and entertainment, related to their expectations of

enjoying a relaxing time of leisure. To attract visitors into the zoo, marketing and

management have presented the image of the zoo as an enjoyable centre for recreation. The

South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC 2417/796) promoted this idea with the

following description:

Adelaide Zoo’s unique combination of contemporary enclosures, heritage buildings, lush garden setting and sensitive landscaping ensures a delightful environment for both animals and visitors.

In promoting their journey to Taronga, Sydney Ferries suggested that visitors:

Take the Sky Safari and enjoy a panoramic view of Sydney Harbour before venturing deep into the lush forests of Taronga Zoo. Discover over 2,000 unique native animals and exotic creatures from around the world.

To the public, the image of the zoo was associated with leisure activity. Although the zoo

fundamentally existed for the keeping and display of wild animals, visitors regarded it as a

site for recreational purposes and their own enjoyment. Although their motivations for

visiting did not revolve around conservational issues or scientific research, visitors perceived

these factors to be the most important in the mission of the zoo and recognised the need for

the zoo to be a centre of excellence in these areas.

We came to see the zoo as a holiday activity, and we were most impressed to see the

zoo taking such an interest in conservation (A142 –visitors from New Zealand).

We came out of interest, but were very impressed with the conservation message of the

zoo, to see animals like the elephants, living in a far better environment and hopefully

contributing to the conservation of the species (TG21 – an older couple from rural

New South Wales).

235

6.2 Visitor perception of the zoo

As outlined in Chapter 3, visitors were asked to indicate their satisfaction with the zoo,

giving a Likert rating ranging between ‘very poor’ and ‘excellent’. The percentage responses

of these ratings were tabulated (Appendix Table 6B) and are shown diagrammatically (Figure

6.2). Overall, visitors rated their level of satisfaction highly in both zoos, with Taronga being

assessed slightly more highly than Adelaide. In Adelaide, 43% of respondents rated the zoo as

excellent and 39% as very good; at Taronga, 46% rated the zoo as excellent and 39% as very

good. In both cities, only 2% of visitors rated the zoos as less than satisfactory.

Figure 6.2: Satisfaction rating of Adelaide and Taronga zoos.

Source: Exit survey question 16K. Total 850 surveys (Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400)

Reference: Appendix Table 6B.

236

To obtain an objective assessment of the zoos, visitors were asked to rank the zoo,

giving a score out of five. The mean and standard deviation of these ranking scores were

calculated (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1: Ranking of zoo. (Maximum Score 5)

Zoo Total Score Responses Mean S.D.

Adelaide 1900 450 4.22 0.80 Taronga 1711 400 4.28 0.78

Combined 3611 850 4.25 0.79

Source: Exit survey question 18. Total 850 surveys.

(Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400)

As mentioned in Chapter 4, frequent visitors ranked the zoo higher than did infrequent

visitors. Although international viewers ranked the zoo highly, their level was not as high as

that of locals. At Taronga, international visitors ranked the zoo at 4.14, a figure slightly lower

than the overall mean of 4.28. This was thought to be linked with such visitors comparing

their expectations with zoos they had visited in other countries, or with other tourist activities.

It was also possible that this slight variation may have been the result of a more parochial

response from local visitors; these included zoo members and frequent visitors, who tended to

rank the zoo higher.

We love the Adelaide Zoo, because it is so accessible with lovely gardens, just the

right size to enjoy all aspects, we come every month (A162).

It was such an easy day out with the kids, we come at least once a month, it really is a

beautiful zoo, the very best! (T158).

Compared to other zoos, this was not much (T113 – international visitor from the

USA).

We don’t have koalas in Switzerland, and to see them was fantastic – this is the best

zoo we have ever been to (T260 – international couple).

237

6.3 Visitor perception of the visit

Using Likert ratings, visitors were asked to assess their levels of satisfaction with each

of four main aspects of their visit. These represented the recreational, entertaining,

educational and informative components experienced when visiting the zoo. The percentages

of responses for each level of satisfaction were tabulated (Appendix Table 6C) and are shown

in Figure 6.3. The rating levels at both zoos were similar, with no significant difference.

Figure 6.3: Satisfaction rating: Components of actual zoo visit. (Poor:1, Excellent:5)

Source: Exit survey question 15, Exhibit survey question 12.

Total 2,175 surveys (Adelaide 1,175 – Taronga 1,000) Reference: Appendix Table 6C.

238

Although visitors considered recreation and entertainment as the lowest of the four

mission statement components (Figure 6.1), their motivations for visiting centred on these

components (Figure 4.11) and they considered these factors as the most important in their

actual visit. As shown (Figure 6.3), 44.2% of visitors rated recreation as excellent and a

further 37.9% as very good. Although rated as the lowest of the four, the ‘informative’ factor

was still rated as very good or excellent by 71.3% of visitors. Less than 3% of respondents

considered that these components of their visit were less than satisfactory. Although there was

some indication that this lower response was linked with infrequent and international visitors,

the numbers were so small that a correlation could not be established.

The plants and the trees make the place like a botanic garden – it is so beautiful and

relaxing, and so entertaining (A107).

The zoo is an education for both adults and children – they learn a lot more seeing the

animals than just looking at books (A378).

We always enjoy visiting the zoo, the animals are so amazing and we learn so much

every time we come (T206).

This is a beautiful zoo to visit, it was so educational and the animals were so well

cared for (T216).

We loved it, we were just so in awe to see such wonderful animals we will probably

never see anywhere else (T222).

239

6.4 Visitor perception of enclosures and animals

Using the Likert rating of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), visitors were requested to assess

their perceptions of ten separate components of their experience in looking at the different

exhibits in the zoo. Six of these related to the exhibit enclosure (cleanliness, attractiveness,

natural realistic, educational, signage and learning venue) and four related to the animals

(animal behaviour, animal activity, happy animals and enrichment items). A comparison of

the percentage of responses rating each item as excellent in both zoos is shown in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4: Satisfaction ratings: Enclosures and animals. Percentage of responses rating ‘excellent’.

Source: Exit survey question 16.

Total 850 surveys (Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400) Reference: Appendix Table 6D.

It is likely that these ratings were influenced by impressions developed as a result of

viewing the individual activities of the animals on display, or individual features of the

240

exhibit which appealed to the visitor, or other factors such as the weather and the time of the

day. It was apparent that a number of different factors influenced viewing patterns, such as

competition between exhibit features, exhibit signs and neighbouring exhibits, as well as the

appeal of the animals themselves together with their degree of activity or inactivity – aspects

previously mentioned by Bitgood et al. (1988). At Adelaide, feeding sessions at the seal

enclosure distracted visitor attention from the otters, and the sounds of roaring lions and

performing siamangs always attracted attention away from surrounding exhibits. Similarly, at

Taronga, the activity and general appeal of the meerkats constantly distracted attention from

the Himalayan tahr enclosure, and the keeper talks at the chimpanzee or gorilla enclosures

always attracted large crowds of people, resulting in lower numbers viewing exhibits in the

immediate vicinity.

The satisfaction ratings of visitors in both zoos were similar, with only 7% of

responses regarding the various features as less than satisfactory. Exhibit cleanliness rated

highest (41.2% excellent), and the zoo as a learning venue was rated second (36.8%

excellent). Although visitors indicated that they had come to the zoo expressly to see animals,

the features related to animals and animal welfare were rated lower by visitors than those

related to exhibits and enclosures. The use of items to enrich animals’ well-being and animal

activity was rated lowest (14% excellent), the activity of animals second lowest (18.5%

excellent), with the third lowest in both zoos being the visitors’ perception of how happy the

animals appeared (20.1% excellent). The greatest variation of opinion and the greatest degree

of dissatisfaction were expressed with enrichment items (12.2% being very dissatisfied and

30.1% less than satisfied). This low response may be attributable to various items not being

observed, not being appreciated, or their purpose not being understood. The perception of

animal activity was variable and appeared to be dependent upon several factors, such as the

time of viewing, weather conditions and behaviour of viewing crowds. Several visitors

provided a justification for their lower ranking, with responses such as ‘it was a hot day’ or

‘the animal was asleep when we went there’. Consequently, although watching live animals

could be regarded as simple viewing, it became apparent that visitors became psychologically

immersed when looking at various aspects of the exhibit, particularly when the animals

showed behaviour which visitors perceived as unusual or displayed unexpected behavioural

patterns such as manipulating the various enrichments.

241

Throughout this research, the two most commonly used terms by visitors were

‘natural’ when referring to the enclosures; and ‘happy’ when referring to the animals. These

two features are now considered in further detail.

6.4.1 ‘Natural’ enclosures

As indicated in Table 6.2, overall 27.2% of visitors rated the natural appearance of

enclosures at both zoos as excellent. At Adelaide 62.7% of visitors rated the natural and

realistic appearance of exhibits highly. At Taronga this figure was slightly higher at 67%.

Less than 8% of visitors rated the appearance of enclosures at Adelaide as less than

satisfactory, compared with 4.3% at Taronga, although it was noticeable that those who rated

the appearance as less than satisfactory were mainly interstate visitors (35%) or infrequent

(37%) visitors. Throughout the period of this research, considerable construction work

occurred in both zoos, with the development of the South East Asian Rainforest immersion

exhibit in Adelaide and the Wild Asia display incorporating the new elephant enclosure at

Taronga. This work meant that a small number of older enclosures were temporarily

unoccupied, a factor which was commonly perceived by visitors in a negative sense. Visitors

did not regard these ‘empty’ enclosures highly.

Table 6.2: Satisfaction ratings: Natural and realistic appearance of enclosures. (Poor: 1 – Excellent: 5)

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 Adelaide 0.7 6.9 29.8 35.1 27.6 Taronga 0.3 4.0 28.8 40.0 27.0 Combined 0.5 5.5 29.3 37.4 27.2

Figures expressed as a percentage.

Source : Exit survey question 16E.

Total 850 surveys (Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400)

242

In Chapter 5 the popularity rankings of different exhibits were determined. These

exhibits were then grouped in terms of the classification order developed in Chapter 3, and the

means of rankings were calculated for each of the three orders, so as to gain an appreciation

of the way in which visitors considered the different enclosures as being ‘naturalistic’. In both

zoos visitors ranked the third order (more naturalistic) highest and the first order (least

naturalistic) lowest (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5: Ranking of enclosures – natural classification.

Maximum score 10

Source: Exhibit survey question 6. Total 1,325 surveys (Adelaide 725 – Taronga 600)

Reference: Appendix Table 6E.

243

Visitors considered that the most naturalistic and realistic exhibits in Adelaide were

the siamang, otter, meerkat, and flamingo enclosures; at Taronga they were The Creatures of

the Wollemi, sun bear, gorilla and meerkat enclosures. In both the siamang and the Wollemi

enclosures, visitors had the opportunity to see animals moving freely, with clear uninterrupted

vision from close quarters, in a manner that created the impression that the animals were in

their natural surroundings. Viewers regarded these enclosures as ‘natural’, particularly since

they assumed that the animal was allowed a greater freedom of movement. Typical visitor

responses included:

It looked so natural with spacious attractive surroundings – Siamang (AS2).

We were so close to animals playing in their natural environment – Otter (AO34).

The surroundings really made us feel we were in a natural habitat – Wollemi (TW3).

I loved seeing animals so close, they did not seem to be enclosed – Gorilla (TG6).

The perceptions of visitors were greatly influenced by the general surroundings to the

enclosures. This influence was particularly apparent when comparing responses given

regarding the giraffe enclosures in the two zoos. Both enclosures were similar in age and

structure and featured older style animal shelters, bare substrate surfaces and minimal

vegetation. At Adelaide, viewers formed the impression that the enclosure was barren,

probably because they viewed the animal against the bare brick wall forming the background

of the enclosure. Visitors regarded this enclosure as unnatural in appearance and rated it low

in the exhibits studied in Adelaide (Appendix Table 6D). In comparison, scenic views of

Sydney harbour and the city skyline provided the background at Taronga, leading to the

finding that visitors perceived the enclosure as natural, as mentioned previously in Chapter 5.

Comments made referring to the giraffes included:

Adelaide:

The poor thing must be bored to death in such a poor space (AG21).

It’s totally boring and unnatural (AG39).

Taronga:

The natural way they are displayed (TG3).

Seeing beautiful animals so close in a natural environment (TG16).

244

The meerkat enclosures in both zoos reflected simple constructions. In Adelaide, an

elongated enclosure consisting of sand, succulents and some mock rock was positioned in

front of the giraffe enclosure (Plate 6.2). Further interest was generated by the presence of

new babies, which were clearly visible and easily seen in close proximity. At Taronga, the

enclosure was composed simply of loose sand mounds surrounding a tree, with a concrete and

brick enclosing wall, on which had been depicted desert scenery. Surveys confirmed that

visitors in both zoos believed that the meerkat’s natural habitat was a desert environment

similar to that depicted in the exhibit. Visitors were attracted to the meerkat exhibit because of

their personal feelings and emotions, as well as by the constant playful activities of the

animals. Both exhibits proved popular with visitors and created a centre of attention for long

periods, mainly as a result of the activity and closeness of the animals. Not only were the

meerkats clearly visible, their wide range of behaviours could be observed constantly. The

positive interest and feelings that visitors developed towards the animals probably increased

their rating of the naturalness of the enclosure.

Some comments relating to the meerkats included:

The meerkats are so inquisitive, playful, curious and cute (TM18).

They are gorgeous and make cute sounds (TM24).

They are so cute, I love watching them, they remind me of the Lion King (TM40).

They are very cute, but are smaller than they appear on TV (TM32).

They are so playful (T414).

Plate 6.2: The meerkat enclosure in front of the giraffe enclosure at Adelaide Zoo.

245

Viewing times at the beaver enclosure in Adelaide were markedly related to visitors’

negative impression of the enclosure. They perceived it as not natural. These negative

impressions may have developed because the beavers were not normally active until late in

the afternoon, spending most of the daytime viewing hours out of sight in their lodge. Visitors

often complained that the enclosure appeared to be old and barren. Although the beavers had

constructed the wooden lodge from natural materials (Plate 6.3), viewers failed to recognise it

as such, as it was not always appreciated nor understood. In some responses visitors indicated

that they considered that the enclosure had not been adequately cleaned because of the

presence of the branches. When the animals were not seen there was a tendency for visitors to

concentrate their attention on either the concrete surroundings or the wooden lodge, with the

consequence that they formed the idea that the enclosure was not natural. These negative

perceptions appeared to develop as the result of a lack of explanation providing knowledge

and understanding of the animal.

Some comments included:-

The exhibit was not very attractive – rather dull and uninspiring (AB4).

It was not a natural environment, there was nothing there (AB3).

It was too small, there was nothing there (AB12).

Plate 6.3: Beaver lodge at Adelaide Zoo.

It was boring, dull and unimpressive (AB15).

246

The Helmore Aviary, which housed the Australian parrots at Taronga, was described

as uninteresting, unnatural, boring, providing insufficient space for the birds and presenting

too much metal and concrete (Plate 6.4). The mean viewing time for all groups passing this

exhibit was only six seconds (Chapter 5). A number of misconceptions were noted at this

particular exhibit, which visitors rated as one of the least popular at Taronga. Many viewers

indicated that an aviary was not a natural environment for birds. Even though viewers realised

that wooden surrounds would not be adequate and would be subjected to attack from the

parrot beaks, the amount of visible metal present in the structure was not appreciated.

Comments included:

Maybe the birds were there, we only glanced in passing (TH28).

There was too much concrete and metal to see the birds (TH39).

Birds are boring, you can see them anywhere (TH25).

There was no movement, they just sat there (TH15).

There was nothing there, it was too small (TH 23).

Plate 6.4: Helmore aviary in Taronga Zoo.

Viewing times at the Himalayan tahr enclosure at Taronga were affected by the

proximity of the meerkat and red panda enclosures. Many visitors who approached

completely ignored the tahr because they were distracted by the meerkats. Once visitors had

247

finished viewing the meerkats, their attention invariably diverted to the red panda enclosure

(which was perceived as natural because of the tree and the amount of surrounding visible

vegetation) rather than the tahr enclosure (which was perceived as boring because of the large

concrete mountain and the bare surrounding concrete). At Adelaide, a similar enclosure that

displayed the Barbary sheep was situated opposite the main entrance (Plate 6.5). Visitors who

entered the zoo through the main entrance invariably looked at this enclosure first, so this

provided the first impressions which formed in the minds of the visitors.

Plate 6.5: Barbary sheep in Adelaide Zoo.

It’s rather boring and unimpressive, it doesn’t look natural

It was apparent that visitors’ thoughts and ideas were negatively influenced by a range

of factors which included old enclosures (tiger in the old enclosure at Adelaide, spider

monkey at Taronga), inactivity (orang-utan in the old enclosure at Adelaide, Kodiak bear at

Taronga), perceived boredom of animals (giraffe in Adelaide, Burma the elephant at Taronga)

and the difficulty of viewing the animal clearly (beaver in Adelaide, Helmore Aviary in

Taronga). As demonstrated in Section 6.7, the main reasons visitors gave for disliking

particular exhibits related to their assumptions that the enclosures were too artificial or

lacking in vegetation, together with misconceptions that an animal which remained inactive or

paced was either unhappy or bored. Enclosures with artificial items, often enrichment devices,

were also often perceived as unnatural and consequently were considered not good for the

animals’ welfare.

248

6.4.2 ‘Happy’ animals

The concept of animals being happy has created differences of opinion and debate. In

this research the use of the word happy was not necessarily regarded as anthropomorphic. It

was simply a word that language readily made available to cover the many meanings visitors

were attempting to express. Some zoo researchers and administrators have denied the

existence of psychological well-being in animals, let alone the possibility of their

experiencing ‘happiness’. In agricultural species, the psychological state of different animals

has often been ignored. On the other hand, pet owners have often maintained that they are

aware of different moods of their pet and that these moods can be easily identified. Within the

zoo environment, visitors commonly interpreted different behavioural activities of the animals

as being related to happiness. Some researchers, such as Shepherdson (2003), have preferred

to use the term ‘well-being’; others such as Jeffrey Masson and Susan McCarthy (1996) have

provided compelling arguments for animal sensibility. Biologist Ian Redmond has even

reported that gorillas sing when they were especially ‘happy’ (Montgomery, 1991:146).

Certainly, visitors to the zoo had no problem in expressing their opinion and in describing the

different species: more than 96% of visitors used terms such as ‘happy’, ‘sad’ or ‘bored’ to

describe the animals they observed. Since these terms were commonly used and clearly

understood by the public, they were consequently used throughout this research. The

satisfaction ratings, in terms of how the visitor interpreted how happy the animal appeared to

be, are summarised in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Satisfaction ratings: Happy appearance of animals. (Poor: 1 - Excellent: 5)

Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 Adelaide 1.6 9.1 33.3 38.4 17.6 Taronga 1.0 9.5 29.8 36.8 23.0 Combined 1.3 9.3 31.7 37.6 20.1

Figures expressed as a percentage.

Source: Exit survey question 16H. Total 850 surveys (Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400)

These responses reflected that the majority of viewers (89.3% at Adelaide and 89.6% at

Taronga) considered that the animals appeared happy. This rating factor was determined for

individual exhibits, using responses from the exhibit surveys, and the results are shown

diagrammatically in Figures 6.6 (Adelaide) and 6.7 (Taronga).

249

Figure 6.6: Satisfaction rating: Happy appearance of animals at Adelaide Zoo.

(Percentage rating ‘excellent’)

Source: Exhibit survey question 9H. Total 725 surveys.

Reference: Appendix Table 6F.

All the animals looked so happy (A37).

250

Figure 6.7: Satisfaction rating: Happy appearance of animals at Taronga Zoo.

(Percentage rating ‘excellent’)

Source: Exhibit survey question 9H. Total 600 surveys.

Reference: Appendix Table 6G.

We loved the animals, they were all every happy (T81).

At Adelaide, visitors rated the meerkat and the flamingo highly in terms of how happy

they appeared. This high rating was a response to the way in which the meerkats attracted

attention because of their constant activity and their high emotional appeal, whereas the

flamingo interacted and vocalised with people as they passed the enclosure. The rating given

to the beaver was the lowest, which was a response to either the animal being out of sight or

the appearance of the enclosure. The bearing of the enclosure on visitors’ assessment of

happiness was also apparent in the ratings given to the tiger and the orang-utan. During the

progress of this research, these animals were moved into new exhibits, so that visitors viewing

patterns were observed at both the old and the new enclosures. In their old enclosures, the

251

‘happy appearance’ of both these animals was perceived as low, which was attributed mainly

to the facial appearance of the orang-utan or the camouflage patterns of the tiger which made

the animal difficult to see. In their new enclosures in the South East Asian Rainforest

development, both animals were considered more happy (Figure 6.7). Similarly, at Taronga,

new developments were carried out during the research period, where similar responses were

noted.

Contrasting perceptions were observed among visitors at Taronga’s gorilla enclosure.

When the animals were moving actively around the enclosure during feeding sessions or

when the juveniles were playing, visitors displayed more interest, perceived the enclosure as

natural and the animals as happy. On days of inclement weather, when the gorillas tended to

remain inactive and sheltered in their den, the animals were perceived as bored or unhappy

(Plate 6.6). It was noticeable that visitors often made an assessment relating to one of the

older gorilla mothers, Kriba, that was based solely on her facial appearance. Although Kriba

was actively nursing and caring for her young offspring, viewers often perceived her as bored,

simply because of her ‘serious’ facial appearance. These responses confirmed that perceptions

were the results of individual interpretations and might not necessarily be accurate.

Plate 6.6: Mother gorilla with her young baby at Taronga.

She looked bored (TG31).

252

Similarly, varieties of views were recorded at the koala enclosures. Since the koalas

spent the majority of the day asleep, they was generally inactive, resting in the treetops. At

Adelaide, where viewing was from ground level, the koalas received minimal attention,

particularly since many visitors did not take the time to look for them. Koala Walkabout at

Taronga Zoo (Plate 6.7) featured an elevated walkway which allowed visitors to view these

marsupials from a close distance, at tree top level, while at the same time it provided excellent

photographic opportunities of a unique Australian animal. As a consequence, both the animals

and the enclosure were rated highly, and visitors perceived the enclosure as natural because of

their close proximity to the koalas and the amount of visible green vegetation.

Plate 6.7: Koala Walkabout at Taronga Zoo.

Inaccuracies of perception often developed because of misconceptions related to

animal activity, as well as emotional feelings. At Adelaide, the otters were generally active for

long periods throughout the day. However, survey responses showed interesting correlations.

When the otters were active the enclosure was perceived as natural. However, when the otters

were inactive or sleeping, the animals were perceived as dull and boring and the enclosure

was regarded as unnatural since too much concrete was visible in the construction. Similar

circumstances were observed at the sun bear exhibit at Taronga. When the sun bears were

busy manipulating various enrichment devices, viewers perceived the enclosure as natural and

the animals as happy. When either of the sun bears commenced pacing (in some cases only a

253

few minutes before the keepers were due to arrive with the main feed of the day), the

enclosure was seen as inadequate and the animals were perceived as being unhappy or bored.

When visitors observed an animal pacing in its enclosure, they perceived that animal

as bored or unhappy and consequently assumed that the animal was not well cared for by the

keepers. A number of misconceptions were apparent in this interpretation of pacing,

particularly in relation to the golden cat and the sun bears (Plate 6.8). These misconceptions

were likely to be the result of a lack of knowledge of the animals and their patterns of

behaviour. At times, when one of the sun bears commenced pacing near the den doors

immediately prior to their feeding session, viewers misinterpreted this activity as the result of

some form of boredom rather than the animal showing an awareness and anticipation of

receiving food. This misunderstanding reflected the problem of signage inadequacy in fully

explaining and accurately describing the animals’ behaviour. Tracking observations showed

that pacing behaviours always resulted in shorter viewing times. Such correlations suggest

that the potential existed for the zoos to provide a better means of educating their visitors in

facets of animal behaviour.

Plate 6.8: Sun bear pacing at Taronga.

Comments about sun bears:

They looked bored (TSB2).

The bear looked restless, so I just walked away (TSB 30).

254

The bear appeared distressed, it was pacing back and forth, I felt sorry for it, the

enclosure must be too small (TSB35).

We like to come to the zoo every two weeks, and just look at one or two animals, just

to learn about their behaviour (A346).

Viewers almost demanded that animals were active, specifically at the time when they

themselves arrived to view the exhibit. Visitors often perceived inactive animals as bored, and

their behaviour as boring, with the consequence that the enclosures were perceived in a

negative light and considered unnatural. Both the beaver enclosure at Adelaide and the

Kodiak bear enclosures at Taronga were examples of exhibits regarded as unnatural since

visitors saw little activity and thought that these enclosures had too much visible concrete.

Plate 6.9: Cynthia, a Kodiak bear, asleep in her enclosure at Taronga Zoo.

The bear looked sad, it wasn’t doing anything (TKB32).

It would appear that there is a need for zoo administrators to consider possible ways

of explaining to visitors the reasons for some animals, such as bears (Plate 6.9), koalas and

lions, to either sleep or remain inactive for long periods throughout the day. Although it may

appear that a potential exists for the use of interactive signage at enclosures to explain such

behaviours, such introduction needs to be approached cautiously. A recorded message

installed at the tree kangaroo enclosure in Adelaide received only the same degree of attention

255

and usage from visitors as other standard labels throughout the zoo. Similarly, an interactive

set-up installed at the old elephant enclosure at Taronga to explain ‘Why Burma Sways’

received little attention from viewers (Table 6.4). Despite the fact that this audio had been

designed to provide recorded information relating to the elephant’s behavioural patterns, it

was observed that less than 8% activated the device and less than 1% listened to the

description in full.

Table 6.4: Attracting power and holding power of interactive recording. ‘Why Burma Sways’

Attracting Power Holding Power

Elephant (Burma) 7.6% 27%

Source: 250 tracking observations.

Reference: Appendix Table 6H.

Plate 6.10: Burma, an elephant, exhibiting swaying behaviour at Taronga Zoo, a behaviour which, unfortunately, was often misinterpreted by visitors. Having been taught in a circus to sway before receiving her food, Burma continued similar swaying patterns in the zoo prior to her feeding times

It was so bored, the elephant was not happy and its cage was so unnatural (TEo5)

The elephant was bored because it was in such a small pen, it was dirty, awful and unnatural

(TEo28)

256

6.5 Animals visitors wanted to watch

Once in the zoo, visitors indicated that they wanted to see certain favoured animals,

even though this might not have been their initial motivational factor for visiting. The

response was similar in both zoos, with 80% of Adelaide visitors and 79% of Taronga visitors

naming specific animals they wished to view during their visit to the zoo. The mean number

of animals mentioned by respondents was approximately the same at both zoos (Adelaide 2.0;

Taronga 2.1), although a wider range of animals was chosen at Adelaide. The responses

depicted in Figure 6.8 gave an indication of this preference and favouritism.

Figure 6.8: Animals visitors wanted to see.

Source: Exit survey question 13. Total 850 survey responses (Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400)

Reference: Appendix Tables 6I, 6J.

In both zoos the animals visitors most wished to see were the big cats (lions and

tigers), large ungulates (elephant, giraffe and hippopotamus) and primates (gorilla,

chimpanzee and siamang). It was apparent that visitors had already formulated these opinions

prior to visiting, in terms of their preferences for viewing the animals. The big cats were

popular with families with children. Whereas this level of popularity was linked with

specifically advertised feeding sessions in Adelaide, the proximity of the animal and the clear

viewing were the main factors that influenced visitors at Taronga. Primates were more

257

popular with adult couples and singles. At Adelaide, several survey responses used the term

‘monkey’, probably an inaccurate reference to either the siamang or the chimpanzee.

Interestingly, only one respondent used the term ‘monkey’ at Taronga. This more frequent

correct nomenclature could have been the result of keeper talks at the gorilla and the

chimpanzee enclosures, during which the correct terminology was explained and the animals

properly identified. In comparison, at Adelaide only the signage indicated the genus, and as

noted in Chapter 7, exhibit signs were generally not read by visitors.

The main difference in responses between the two zoos occurred with a higher number

of Australian species being preferred at Taronga, a figure linked with the higher percentage of

international visitors in Sydney. Travellers from overseas indicated that their main reason for

coming to the zoo was the express desire to glimpse rare and unusual Australian native

animals that had previously been experienced only as images in television documentaries,

photographs in travel brochures or descriptions in textbooks.

Animals evoked a wide range of emotional responses from visitors. Many survey

responses indicated a preference for animals that were perceived by viewers as majestic,

beautiful or cute, whilst others were thought of as dangerous, ugly or scary, and still others

were simply regarded as common. The number of emotional responses was particularly

evident at the meerkat enclosures. In Adelaide, this response was linked with media

references to new births, the development of a new exhibit, and excellent viewing facilities,

which allowed close proximity to the animals. However, these influences did not apply at

Taronga, which shared a similar high response. The common factor in both zoos was that the

meerkat was observed as ‘cute’ and its popularity was frequently associated with comments

likening the small animals to the fairy tale Timone from The Lion King (1994) or to the

television series Meerkat Manor (2005).

Visitors expressed a desire to see large animals in the zoo. Although elephants were on

display at Taronga for approximately half of the research period only, they represented the

highest individual response as to visitors’ desire to view. In Adelaide, elephants were the

seventh highest response, despite the fact that none were present and the zoo had clearly

indicated that, because of space limitations, there were no intentions to display elephants in

the future.

258

Several responses referred to animals that were not present in the zoo. This number

was considerably more in Adelaide than at Taronga, with 52 responses at Adelaide compared

to only three at Taronga. In Adelaide, survey responses suggested that this might possibly

have been linked with the murals on the outside wall near the main entrance, since 35 of

responses related to the elephant and two to the black and white panda (Plate 6.11). Other

survey responses, particularly those from infrequent visitors, indicated that some of these

selections may have been enjoyed during some previous zoo visit and there was a desire to

see them again. At least one response in Adelaide indicated that the visitor was confused

between Adelaide and Monarto Zoo, a misapprehension that seemed to be the result of

advertising for the Monarto Zoo having been displayed on the city bus link.

Plate 6.11: Murals on the wall adjoining the main entrance from Frome Road at Adelaide.

We couldn’t find the black and white pandas (A209 – interstate tourist).

We enjoyed ourselves, but we could not find the elephants (A123 – interstate tourist).

259

6.6 Exhibits most liked by visitors

The previous section considered animals people most wanted to see during their time

at the zoo. This section looks at the animals that were most liked by people after they had

visited the zoo. Respondents were asked to indicate these particular animals. The results were

tabulated (Appendix Table 6K, 6L) and are depicted graphically in Figure 6.9. Since no two

exhibits were identical, it was almost impossible to make specific comparisons between

individual exhibits within the two zoos. However, certain similarities were apparent in the

responses. The five most highly regarded exhibits were selected by 54% of Adelaide exit

survey respondents, and the five most highly regarded exhibits at Taronga were chosen by

52% of respondents. Similarly the nocturnal and reptile houses were selected by 6% in

Adelaide compared with 5% at Taronga, and the children’s section was preferred by 8% in

Adelaide compared to 4% in Taronga.

Figure 6.9: Animals visitors liked best.

Source: Exit survey question 17. Total 777 survey responses (Adelaide 406 – Taronga 371)

Reference: Appendix Tables 6K, 6L.

Overall, the animal enclosures that were liked best by exiting visitors were the big cats

(lions and tigers), large ungulates (elephants, giraffes and hippopotami) and primates

(siamangs, chimpanzees and gorillas). In terms of the individual animals most liked, at

260

Adelaide these were the lions, the siamangs, the tigers (in the new enclosure), the meerkats

and the seals. In contrast, at Taronga the five most liked exhibits were the gorillas, the tigers,

the chimpanzees, the giraffes and the seals. Survey responses also indicated that some of the

reasons for visitor preferences were linked with feeding sessions, clear viewing and proximity

to these animals. Throughout the period of this research, viewers had the opportunity to

observe a number of newly born and young animals, which proved to be a dominant factor

influencing viewing behaviour. The most popular of these new offspring included baby

meerkats, young lions and siamangs in Adelaide and baby gorillas, chimpanzees and a young

giraffe at Taronga. To a lesser extent, young tamarins (Adelaide) and snow leopards

(Taronga) drew considerable attention.

At Adelaide the lion exhibit proved most popular, mainly because of the large, open

enclosure, which permitted several vantage points from which visitors could view clearly the

different activities of the lions, from a close distance (Plate 6.12). The size of the animals

attracted the attention of the visitors. A number of frequent visitors made comments about the

family structure, particularly the young adolescent lions that had been born in the zoo.

Visitors commonly made remarks about the series of attractive labels that provided interesting

and detailed information about the lions. These were appreciated, particularly when the lions

were inactive in the middle of the day. At Taronga, the open, naturalistic gorilla enclosure

(Plate 6.13), with large uninterrupted viewing areas gave visitors the opportunity to view

various behavioural patterns. Viewers were fascinated by the activities of the gorilla family

and several responses compared the similarity of the animals’ behaviours with that of humans.

Other responses referred to the family structure of the gorilla family, particularly the

relationship between the three young gorillas with their mothers. Invariably the large

silverback attracted attention, particularly when he actively moved and foraged around the

exhibit at feeding times.

At Adelaide, the smaller animals most liked by visitors were meerkats and birds, and

at Taronga the smaller animals most liked were meerkats and red pandas. In both zoos the free

flight bird shows provided excellent views of the birds as they flew in close proximity to the

viewing audience. These shows were popular with viewers, many of whom would take up

advantageous viewing positions up to half an hour before the show was due to commence. In

Adelaide, as well as the popular lunchtime flight show of macaws, a series of keeper talks

were given during feeding sessions with pelicans, penguins and in the rainforest aviary, all of

which increased the general perception and appreciation of birds. Unlike the flamingo

261

enclosure and the walk-through aviaries in Adelaide, the bird displays at Taronga (throughout

the duration of this research) were not as close to the visitor and did not permit the same

degree of interaction between the viewing public and the animal on display.

Plate 6.12: The large open enclosure for the lions in Adelaide allowed visitors several vantage points for clear viewing, and a series of attractive labels provided informative material.

Plate 6.13: The large naturalistic-looking gorilla enclosure at Taronga. Opened on 3 January 1997, Gorilla Forest is home to Kibabu, and his family of three adult females and their offspring.

262

A number of different features caught the attention of visitors, causing them to stop

and look at various animals in different enclosures. The range of reasons suggested for liking

individual exhibits, expressed as a percentage of the total number of reasons, are depicted in

Figure 6.10 (Appendix Table 6M). These reasons related to individualistic appreciation of

features of the animals (60%) and the enclosure (25%).

Figure 6.10: Reasons visitors liked exhibits. (expressed as a percentage)

Source: Exit survey question 8.

Total 798 survey responses (Adelaide 401 – Taronga 397) Reference: Appendix Table 6M.

The majority of reasons suggested by visitors for liking exhibits revolved around the

animals on display. These included the animals themselves (24%), their behavioural and

activity patterns (20%), their individual features such as colour and size (10%), and the

presence of young animals or babies (6%). The main attracting features relating to animal

activity included patterns of behaviour such as feeding, active movement, or manipulating

enrichment items. Although animal vocalisations always attracted visitor attention,

263

respondents did not rate this factor highly in terms of their reason for liking the particular

exhibit. Physical features centred around characteristics of the actual enclosure (10%), the

provision of clear visibility (5%) and the close proximity to the animal on display (5%). Only

2% of responses specifically referred to the natural appearance of the enclosure as a reason for

liking the exhibit, although several comments reflected the way in which visitors perceived

the overall enclosure as natural. These positive comments contrasted with those of

respondents who disliked enclosures that were suspected or assumed not to be natural.

At Adelaide, several references were made to the old barred enclosures that had been

seen during previous visits and that, because of their age and structure, had become well

known. The siamang enclosure was appreciated because of the boardwalk that provided good

viewing from an elevated position. This boardwalk was also acceptable to visitors, not only

because it allowed viewing in pleasant sheltered conditions, but also because of the ease of

accessibility for wheelchairs, strollers and Kiddy Kabz throughout the enclosure. At Taronga,

both the gorilla and chimpanzee enclosures were perceived as very natural. As with the lion

enclosure at Adelaide, good vision of these animals could be gained from a number of

vantage points. Glass viewing areas allowed visitors the opportunity of looking at the these

primates when they were sheltering in their dens during inclement weather. It was evident

from responses that visitors were impressed by the size of the enclosures. These larger

viewing areas were not only an advantage for visitors but also affected their perception of the

animals, particularly since they provided a number of good photographic opportunities.

In depicting the exhibits that were most liked by visitors, the survey responses

revealed that certain features initially attracted visitors’ attention, causing them to stop and

view the animals. The proportional responses of these features are shown diagrammatically in

Figure 6.11. These results showed that the behaviour of the animals and the animals

themselves were the two factors which most attracted visitor attention. However, the

influence of the presence of children on the viewing patterns of visiting groups was apparent,

as 19% of responses indicated that visitors were initially attracted to an exhibit because of an

interest or preference shown by children. Emotional responses, the most common of which

was ‘They were cute’, were given by 15% of visitors (Plates 6.14, 6.15). At Adelaide,

meerkats and otters were emotional favourites, and at Taronga the presence of baby gorillas

impressed viewers, as well as the behavioural activities of the gorilla family, which were seen

to be ‘human-like’ and ‘just like us’ (Plate 6.16). It was evident that the activities of the

young chimpanzees, particularly their playful performances and antics, impressed visitors.

264

Plate 6.14: Koala – the most liked Australian animal at Taronga Zoo does not need lessons in being cute.

It was so cute (T66).

Plate 6.15: Penguins – the most liked bird at Adelaide Zoo.

They were absolutely gorgeous (AP33).

265

Figure 6.11: Features liked by visitors.

Source: Exit survey question 7. Total 674 survey responses (Adelaide 374 – Taronga 300)

Reference: Appendix Table 6N.

Plate 6.16: A young gorilla at Taronga, contemplating its next mischievous deed.

They are just like us (TG33).

266

6.7 Exhibits liked least by visitors

When asked to indicate the exhibit which they had liked least during their visit to the

zoo, 18% of respondents specified ‘None’, and a further 18% provided no response. Whereas

the results tabulated (Appendix Table 6.P) indicated that 91% of respondents most liked an

average 1.8 animal exhibits, in comparison only 64% of respondents least liked an average of

1.0 exhibits. The exhibits least liked in both zoos are shown in Figure 6.12.

Figure 6.12: Exhibits liked least by visitors.

Source: Exit survey question 8. Total 850 survey responses (Adelaide 450 – Taronga 400).

Reference: Appendix Table 6P.

The most disliked exhibits, in both zoos, were the bird displays. Whilst the reasons for

this selection varied, a number of responses indicated that many visitors did not consider birds

to be animals. They were described as ‘dull’, ‘boring’ or ‘uninteresting’. There was a strong

personal dislike of birds being kept in cages, with a common response being, ‘I don’t like

seeing animals kept in cages’. The display of birds created an interesting paradox, in that

although they were the most disliked exhibits, they were also most liked by many visitors,

particularly those who had an interest in aviculture.

The main reasons suggested for disliking an enclosure were linked with negative

perceptions. The old tiger and bear enclosures at Adelaide were regarded as being ‘too small’,

267

‘too old’ or having ‘insufficient space’ for the animal. At Taronga, both the old elephant and

seal enclosures were disliked. The old elephant enclosure was seen as being ‘boring’,

‘unnatural’ and having ‘too much concrete’. Prior to the new enclosure being opened, a

number of responses complained that the area was empty. The seal enclosure was described as

being ‘old’, and ‘boring’, and that the depth of water made the animal ‘hard to see’. As a

consequence, in both zoos, when visitors perceived the enclosure as ‘old’, ‘tired’, or having

‘too much concrete’, they expressed a dislike for the animal based on the assumption that it

was ‘unhappy’ or ‘bored’, and the animal was not regarded favourably.

You’d be bored witless if you were kept locked up like that all day (T302).

A strong dislike was also expressed in reference to reptiles, which in most cases

reflected an apprehension and fear of reptiles generally. Although the reptile houses in both

zoos proved to have a strong attracting power and visitors had no hesitation in viewing them,

several responses expressed negative emotions including dislike, anxiety, apprehension and

trepidation. Similarly, although the nocturnal houses had a strong attracting power, visitors

did not always appreciate the concept of displaying animals in darkened conditions.

Observations revealed that many visitors were impatient with what was perceived as

inactivity, and many were not prepared to allow their eyes to accustom to the lower levels of

illumination. Responses indicated that visitors found the animals difficult to see, and others

did not appreciate the restrictions relating to flashlight photography. At Taronga, a number of

responses indicated dissatisfaction with viewing in the nocturnal house which related to the

level of noise, often generated by unsupervised school groups. At Adelaide, family groups

expressed concern about supervision, typified by the comment ‘I tend to loose [sic] the kids in

the dark’ (A 128).

A graphic interpretation of the visitor’s response

268

Reasons suggested by viewers for disliking exhibits tended to be individualistic and

reflect personal points of view. Photographers in both zoos made negative responses, the

presence of wire mesh at the lion enclosure in Adelaide and the occurrence of glare from glass

windows at Taronga both evoking unfavourable comments. Similar responses were often

expressed by visitors as a result of their sensory abilities, in particular the sense of smell. In

Adelaide, this was most apparent at the wild dog, seal and hippopotamus enclosures, where

some visitors objected to what they considered unpleasant smells. At Taronga, similar

responses were made in relation to the farm animals in the children’s section.

Their reasons for these selections, expressed as a percentage of the total number of

reasons given, are summarised and shown in Figure 6.13.

Figure 6.13: Reasons visitors least liked exhibits. (expressed as a percentage)

Source: Exit survey question 9, Exhibit question 6.

Total 583 survey responses (Adelaide 287 – Taronga 296). Reference: Appendix Table 6Q.

269

The main perceptions of visitors in relation to either liking or disliking exhibits

concerned either the animals themselves or the visitors’ impressions of the enclosure (Figure

6.14). A higher percentage of respondents liked features relating to the animals, and a higher

number disliked the enclosures. Overall, when enclosures were disliked, it was as a result of

them being perceived as old, unattractive or unnatural. Individual perceptions reflected

visitors’ dislikes which revolved around fears or anxiety, particularly dislike of reptiles,

spiders and insects.

Figure 6.14: Comparison of percentage of appreciation of visitor likes and dislikes to exhibits.

Source: Exit survey questions 8, 9; Exhibit question 6.

Total 1,381 survey responses. (Adelaide 688 – Taronga 693)

270

6.8 Case study: New enclosures

Throughout the duration of this research, new enclosures were developed in both zoos.

The South East Asian Rainforest exhibit provided a new area for the tigers and orang-utans in

Adelaide, and the Wild Asia exhibit at Taronga included the new elephant enclosure. With the

improvements and development of more modern enclosures, visitors quickly found

themselves engrossed in enclosures as they looked at exhibits that had been specifically

designed to hide any human aspects and artificiality. Instead of viewing animals in ornate late

19th century constructions, visitors observed animals in displays that had been developed to

simulate the animal’s natural environment. These new enclosures resulted in marked changes

being observed in the perceptions and appreciation of visitors.

6.8.1 Adelaide Zoo

As part of the Adelaide Zoo Master Plan, the new exhibits gave visitors access to

views overlooking a lowland rainforest, leading into riverside vegetation with split water

reserves at different heights, which allowed the creation of a cascading waterfall. A central

feature of the exhibit was the ‘O-Line Tower’, which enabled the orang-utans access to swing

high above the tiger enclosure. The $4 million exhibit represented the largest capital works

project in the 126-year history of the zoo and provided the public with an insight into animals

and their natural habitat. Speaking in the South Australian Parliament, the Minister for

Environment and Conservation, the Hon. G. E. Gago referred to ‘this excellent exhibit, which

enhances the zoo’s reputation and which is providing the people of South Australia, overseas

visitors and interstate guests with an experience of visiting one of the finest zoos of this type

in the world’ (Hansard, Tuesday 2 May 2006).

Comments made by visitors reflected their thoughts and ideas relating to the different

exhibits. The old tiger enclosure (Plate 6.18) was thought to be too small (67%), and with the

exception of one response indicating that the tiger was lonely, all responses indicating dislike

made reference to the enclosure. Features which were liked were mainly the proximity of

animal (22%), the animal itself (22%), the vegetation (31%) and the visibility of the tiger

when it was close to the front of the enclosure (18%).

The tiger was the most impressive thing, the surroundings weren’t that impressive (ATo26).

271

In the new enclosure (Plate 6.19), 31% liked the possibility of viewing the animal

underwater in its new pool. A range of comments related to natural appearance, vegetation,

ease of viewing and the amount of space available for the animal. Less than 25% of viewers

disliked aspects of the new enclosure, with their main concerns relating to the difficulty of

distinguishing the tiger from the surrounding vegetation cover.

Tigers are good at hiding (ATn36).

The tiger looked very healthy and clean in a more natural environment (ATn26).

I enjoyed seeing the animal in a more pleasant and natural way at close proximity

(ATn28).

With the removal of barriers, the new enclosure shifted from the traditional exhibit

design to one of immersion, which was positively received by visitors. This approval was

reflected in a marked increase in the mean ranking scores for each of the exhibits (Figure

6.15).

Figure 6.15: Comparison of mean ranking score for old and new exhibits at Adelaide Zoo.

Source: Exhibit survey question 6.

Total 160 survey responses.

272

It was noted that at the old tiger enclosure, the ratio of like to dislike comments was

1:1. At the new enclosure, the ratio was 4:1, demonstrating the change in perceptions of

viewers. This increase in appreciation was also apparent as respondents indicated a marked

increase in their level of satisfaction with individual aspects of the animal and the enclosure.

The increases in the percentage of visitors rating the exhibits as excellent were most apparent

in Figure 6.16.

Figure 6.16: Comparison of satisfaction ratings for old and new exhibits at Adelaide Zoo.

(Percentage rating: Excellent)

Source: Exhibit survey question 9. Total 160 survey responses.

Reference: Appendix Table 6R.

The new immersion exhibits at Adelaide resulted in changed perceptions of both the

animal and the enclosure. Overall, the percentage of respondents who considered the new

exhibit excellent increased from 14% to 36%. Although the degree of animal activity

remained the same, it was perceived to be higher, whilst a higher percentage of visitors

273

perceived that the animals on display were happier in their new enclosures (Figures 6.17). It

was apparent that visitors formed their impressions of the animal not only against the

backdrop of the enclosure, but also displays surrounding the new enclosures (Plate 6.17).

Figure 6.17: Satisfaction rating: Happy appearance of tigers and orang-utans at Adelaide Zoo.

(Percentage rating: Excellent)

Source: Exhibit survey question 9H. Total 160 surveys.

Reference: Appendix Table 6F.

Plate 6.17: Display adjoining the new South East Asian immersion exhibit at Adelaide Zoo.

274

Plate 6.18: The old heavily barred enclosure for the tiger at Adelaide Zoo.

Plate 6.19: The new South East Asian exhibit at Adelaide Zoo permitting clear viewing of the animals

through the glass panels.

275

6.8.2 Taronga Zoo

The Wild Asia complex developed at Taronga consisted of ten different exhibits and

provided visitors the opportunity to walk along a jungle path joining different displays that

covered 2.4 hectares of rainforest, landscaped with over 27,000 plants. Like the new

enclosures at Adelaide, these new exhibits represented an immersion display where visitors

could experience the joy of acquiring new insights in face-to-face encounters and ‘discover’

animals through artificial mists that recreated the home of these forest creatures. As part of

this new display, the elephant exhibit comprised different sections that included a massive

barn, a swimming pool deep enough for the animals to completely submerge themselves,

grassy fields, dirt mounds, mud wallows and a waterfall. As previously mentioned, the

importation of the elephants received international opposition before an extensive review by

the National Administrative Appeals Tribunal confirmed that the importation was primarily

for conservation purposes and approved their introduction. With access to an area of 5,666

square metres, the five elephants finally made their public debut in November 2006.

The old elephant enclosure (Plate 6.21) had been perceived as having too much

concrete (18%), lacking space and being too small (23%), and appearing to be old and run-

down (33%). These perceptions were exemplified by responses such as

Lots of the other exhibits are wonderful, but I wasn’t very keen on this one (TEo7).

This was actually my least favourite exhibit in the zoo, it was quite bare and there was

a lot of concrete (TEo27).

In contrast to these thoughts relating to the exhibit, viewers appreciated the opportunity not

only to see large animals in close proximity, but also to interact with them on occasions.

Responses indicated that features that were liked referred mainly to the animals themselves

(29%), the overall enclosure (18%) and the proximity of viewing the animals (13%). Positive

perceptions formed at the old enclosure were reflected in comments such as:

I was really impressed by how close the elephant was to the public and the amount of

space the animal had to roam (TEo3).

The way it reached through the bars and you could touch it was fantastic (TEo39).

At the new elephant enclosure (Plate 6.22), 24% liked the new pool area best,

particularly since it provided good photographic opportunities and viewers could observe the

animals playing together in close proximity. A range of positive comments related to natural

appearance (17%), the ease of viewing (9%) and the attractiveness of the new exhibit (8%).

276

Surprisingly, 37% of viewers disliked certain aspects of the new enclosure, with more than

half of their concerns relating to a perception that the area was too small for the elephants. It

was thought that these remarks could have been related to references in the media to

comments made by activists who had opposed the introduction of the elephants. The contrast

in opinions was typified by:

It is far too small (TEn10).

I was impressed with the large area they have to roam (TEn24).

It doesn’t seem big enough for five elephants (TEn38).

I liked the lovely way it was presented and the amount of space for the elephants

(TEn31).

The overall opinion of visitors was reflected in their ranking of the new enclosure being

considerably higher than rankings previously assigned to the old enclosure (Figure 6.18). The

old elephant enclosure was ranked lowest of the exhibits studied at Taronga, whereas the new

enclosure was ranked highest.

Figure 6.18: Comparison of mean ranking score for old and new exhibits at Taronga Zoo.

Source: Exhibit survey question 6.

Total 80 survey responses. Refer Table 5.3.

277

At the old elephant enclosure the ratio of like to dislike comments was 1:1; at the new

enclosure it was 2.7:1. Similar to the results obtained at Adelaide, this change in ratio

reflected the perception of the viewers. The change in satisfaction ratings for different

components of the enclosures was most apparent at the new elephant enclosure (Figure 6.19).

Figure 6.19: Comparison of satisfaction ratings for old and new exhibits at Taronga Zoo.

(Percentage rating: Excellent)

Source: Exhibit survey question 6. Total 80 survey responses.

Reference: Appendix Table 6R.

The new Wild Asian exhibits at Taronga also resulted in changed perceptions of both

the animal and the enclosure. The percentage of respondents who considered the new exhibit

excellent increased from 3% to 55%. The degree of animal activity was perceived to be

higher, whilst a higher percentage of visitors perceived that the animals on display were

278

happier in their new enclosures (Figures 6.20). As was the situation in Adelaide, it was also

apparent that the impressions visitors formed was influenced by the ambience and atmosphere

of the surrounding environment (Plate 6.20).

Figure 6.20: Satisfaction rating: Happy appearance of elephants at Taronga Zoo.

(Percentage rating: Excellent)

Source: Exhibit survey question 9H. Total 80 surveys.

Reference: Appendix Table 6G.

Plate 6.20: Viewing area adjoining the new elephant enclosure at Taronga Zoo.

279

Plate 6.21: An elephant, Burma, feeding in the old enclosure at Taronga Zoo.

This exhibit was really poor, it looked boring and dirty (TEo25).

Plate 6.22: Section of the new elephant enclosure at Taronga Zoo, showing the large barn (sleeping area),

open enclosure and waterway.

This is the best, the exhibit was just like the real habitat (TE40).

280

6.9 Visitors’ thoughts relating to elephants

In carrying out this research, the one species that received most attention from visitors

was the elephant. Respondents in both zoos indicated that they expected to see elephants on

display. People remembered earlier visits to the zoo and often recalled their experiences with

these animals, in some cases having ridden around the zoo on them. Zoos and animal welfare

advocates have differed widely in their opinions relating to the keeping of elephants in

captivity. The introduction of the five new elephants into Taronga’s new enclosure created a

dichotomy of opinion relating to keeping these animals for display. Prior to their arrival,

Taronga’s director, Guy Cooper, was reported as saying ‘We did research which showed 90%

of people were supportive of our plans to bring the elephants here for conservation and

breeding programmes’ (Rural Press Interactive, 2006). Stephen Rares, senior counsel for

IFAW, informed the appeals tribunal hearing that placing the elephants in Taronga’s new

enclosure was akin to the giving of a life sentence: ‘To an elephant (the new enclosure) is a

jail’ (IFAW, 2006). During this research, it became apparent that zoo visitors showed little

interest in the conflicting opinions and simply expressed the desire to see elephants. At

Taronga, in the period during which elephants were not on display, more than half (55%) of

respondents added comments to their responses such as, ‘Where are the elephants?’, even

though no specific questions had been included in the survey. At Adelaide it was noted that in

fully 20% of responses to the surveys similar comments were made, even though elephants

had not been on display since 1994 and there was no intention of keeping them in Adelaide

again. People who visited the zoo wanted to see elephants.

At the new exhibit, many comments referred to the animals themselves, their size and

their activities (Plates 6.23, 6.24).

Elephants are just so amazing, they love playing in water (TEn6).

The elephants are fabulous; I was impressed by the obvious joy of the animals

(TEn16).

The animals showed a genuine affection for their keepers (TEn20).

It was interesting to see the way in which they foraged food with their trunk and how

they fed it into their mouths (TEn12).

A number of viewers referred to the long and frustrating delays that had been

experienced with the importation of the elephants from Thailand.

281

It’s lovely to see the elephants here after waiting for so long (TEn15).

They looked so happy and much better than where they came from (TEn30).

It was just really exciting to see the elephants finally here and having a great time

(TEn39).

Responses reflected a change in perception of visitors, with the increase in comments

related to education and conservation issues. At the old exhibit, no references had been made

to conservation, and the only comment relating to education referred to the way in which one

viewer had been intrigued by the method in which the elephant collected food by the use of its

trunk. At the new enclosure, visitors were more aware of conservation and the need to keep

the species alive.

Seeing the animals in their natural habitat was just so educational (TEn25).

The elephant is living in a far better environment and contributing hopefully to the

conservation of the species (TEn21).

It was so educational seeing animals which are endangered in the wild (TEn33).

As with all the exhibits researched, a number of responses reflected emotional and

poignant thoughts of the respondent. At the old exhibit, responses centred on perceptions that

the animals were bored or unhappy, mainly as a response to the swaying behaviour of one of

the elephants, which was often misinterpreted. At the new enclosure, visitors were influenced

by the playful activities of the elephants, seen at close proximity to the viewer.

The elephants looked so happy (TE364).

The elephants are so beautiful (TE384).

The change in perception with the new enclosure was possibly best summarised by the

response of the mother of a two-year old child, who after seeing two of the elephants playing

under the waterfall in their new enclosure, commented:

Its very emotional seeing the elephants here for the first time, this really is a special

moment in time (T375).

282

Plate 6.23: Two young female elephants playing together in the new enclosure at Taronga.

Plate 6.24: Gung, a young male elephant at Taronga, manipulating an enrichment food reward. The

elephant’s appearance is the result of Gung having had a dust bath in a large pile of red soil.

283

6.10 Summary

The previous chapter examined the viewing behaviours of visitors in the zoo; this

chapter considered their thoughts and appreciation of various displays. Despite the generally

accepted notion that the public regard the zoo simply as a collection and display of rare and

exotic animals, at their most fundamental level, zoos are not merely for animals, they are for

people. Zoos are extraordinary places where viewers can experience and understand a wide

range of happenings and events.

The long-standing image of the zoo as a place of leisure and recreation has tended to

overshadow conservation-based activities. From the end of the 1960s, a major concern of

many zoos has been an attempt to present an increasingly perfect imitation of nature as they

have attempted to become wildlife conservatories. In both zoos, management has regarded

conservation highly. At Adelaide, the yellow-footed rock wallaby is the Zoo’s signature

species and is featured on the zoo’s coat-of-arms. Displayed at the zoo since 1883, they have

been bred successfully since the 1920s and have been re-introduced to part of their former

habitat in the Flinders Ranges. Taronga has also shown a keen interest in conservation and

research projects, having been successfully involved with a ten-year study of the little

penguin. Mazur (1995) pointed out that many zoo administrators would agree that the most

important role for zoos in conservation is to educate the visiting public in the hope of

stimulating an increased awareness of various conservation issues. These two roles of

conservation and education are very different. Whereas captive breeding can be seen as an

attempt to protect animals for the future, education can be regarded as changing the future to

protect animals. Both zoos promoted an awareness of conservation. At Adelaide, the zoo’s

commitment to conservation and research was emphasised at a number of exhibits (such as

the yellow-footed rock wallaby), in their magazine (Zoo Times) and in behind-the-scenes

tours (like their after-hours walk ‘Cage to Conservation’). At Taronga, keeper talks at the

gorilla and chimpanzee feeding sessions specifically referred to the bushmeat crisis and the

manner in which this unsustainable trade is wiping out wildlife in Africa and other parts of the

world.

Captive breeding programmes in zoos have often been criticised because of the limited

ability to breed endangered species and restore them into their wild habitats. One of the

arguments promoted by Rares (representing IFAW, RSPCAS and HSI) at the hearing of the

284

Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the importation of the elephants related to the fact

that elephants had not been successfully bred in Australian zoos and ‘There is no plan to

breed elephants so that they can be put back in the wild’ (IFAW, 2006). In reply to such

criticisms, zoos have increasingly turned to research to help them achieve their aims. Zoo

research has included a broad range of activities that have often been described by the term

‘science’. Adelaide Zoo has played an important role in the re-introduction of numerous

native and exotic species, in particular the release of two sub-species of Petrogale at the

Aroona Sanctuary in the Flinders Ranges, which has been claimed to be the most successful

mainland macropod reintroduction in Australia (Andrews, 2006:13). At Taronga Zoo, a

Conservation Research Centre has been established, which in 1998 listed 48 different research

projects.

During their time at the zoo, visitors were faced with several challenging alternatives.

Linn (1981) demonstrated that in a museum, objects and their interpretation could be

categorised according to their effect on visitors. Likewise, both Hills (1993) and Falk and

Dierking (1992) demonstrated that visitors to a zoo already hold certain attitudes and

expectations before they arrive at an exhibit to start looking at the animals on display. Kellert

(1985) and Bitgood (1992b) explained that some animals have the ability to evoke aesthetic

and emotive responses, whereas others evoke different reactions, either positive or negative

(such as the fear of spiders or reptiles). As a consequence of these different responses, it

became clear that visitor perceptions of animals and their enclosures were not simple to

determine. Some survey responses indicated that the simple fact that the animal was alive was

an exclusive characteristic of animals displayed in the zoo, an attribute that the static displays

in museums or pictures in a textbook was unable to replicate.

It was so good to see real animals in a natural environment (A127).

People who visited the zoo expressed a desire to see healthy animals. Their enjoyment

was enhanced when they were able to see various forms of activity, whether it was the

animals’ simple investigation of the enclosure and playing in pools, or the more complex

behavioural patterns observed in searching for food rewards from enrichment devices.

Visitors expected that the animals they wanted to see would be active at the time they arrived

at the enclosure. However, many species spend long periods during the day either asleep or

resting, a feature described by workers such as Joan Herbers (1981). Visitors had an

anthropomorphic view of animals, particularly the ‘human-like’ apes. This work indicated

that viewers related closely to ‘beautiful sun bears’ and ‘cuddly koalas’, confirming the

285

research of Melissa Kaplan who found that the most popular animals were those that

displayed anthropomorphic features and possessed large eyes or soft, cuddly bodies (Kaplan,

1997:272). Visitors did not appreciate looking at animals that they perceived as bored or

inactive, such as the sun bears when pacing, or the tiger when sleeping. They expressed

concern when they observed pacing, thinking that this action was unnatural and that the

animal was bored – even when the animal was pacing in anticipation of receiving its food

supplies.

Coe (1985) suggested that when animals were exhibited in naturalistic conditions, or

when they displayed what is accepted as natural patterns of behaviour, viewers would develop

a better understanding of the animals’ place in nature. Coe further suggested that should

animals be placed in ‘ugly’ conditions, the visitor might be repelled by the exhibit and feel

some pity for the animal. Apart from any preconceived desires about wanting to see specific

animals, the main reasons visitors preferred different exhibits related to the prospect of seeing

active animals, clearly, in an enclosure that they perceived as natural. Visitors judged the

different exhibits as being ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’, formulating their thoughts and opinions on

the way in which they perceived the particular animals’ environment, even though this

perception may have been based on false assumptions. When looking at different exhibits in a

zoo, viewers tended to consider the animals’ actions in anthropomorphic terms. They

developed perceptions and understandings that the animal, from their point of view, appeared

to be happy, sad or bored, without having any knowledge of the animal or its behavioural

patterns. In the majority of cases visitors formed their opinions after only a few seconds of

viewing.

The preferences about viewing captive animals in the zoo were often clouded by

various emotional factors. Visitors showed a marked preference for large mammals, whose

sheer bulk and strength often seemed to astonish viewers as a feat of nature. Visitors

appreciated the elephants because they could establish some form of contact with them, many

recalling previous encounters when zoos had elephant rides. Big cats were a focus of interest

not only because they symbolised majesty, but also because they symbolised some sort of a

fear of nature. Visitors empathised with animals such as the sun bears, which drew responses

of compassion as visitors reflected upon what was perceived by some as apparent cruelty of

humans and by others as culture. They enjoyed viewing the constant activity of animals like

the siamangs and the chimpanzees, which were considered to be having, or creating, fun –

even when hostility patterns of behaviour were being displayed. They showed keen interest

286

when animals started manipulating enrichment items and considered that this was a natural

behaviour.

Koran et al. (1986:10) pointed out that in any exhibit in the zoo, a number of

significant animal characteristics existed, which included both the activity and the behaviour

of the captive animal. This activity has clearly been increased through animals interacting

with different enrichments, the use of which has supported the findings of workers such as

Coe (1985), who showed that attention-catching items tended to have their dimensions

overestimated, making them seem even more important.

This research showed that visitors to the zoo possessed particular likes and dislikes

towards different zoo animals, with larger animals preferred to smaller animals and more

naturalistic looking exhibits preferred to older enclosures. Bitgood’s informal observations

led him to believe that the size of an enclosure influenced the attracting and holding power of

an exhibit. He reported that the animals that attracted the greatest amounts of attention were

those of larger body size and those that were perceived to have a higher level of intelligence.

Bitgood (1999) also established that visitors continued to look at exhibits for longer periods

when the animals were clearly seen, or when viewers were able to get closer to the animal. He

also noted that visitor perceptions about the welfare of animals were greatly influenced by the

size of the enclosure.

Survey responses indicated that there was little doubt that during their visit to the zoo

visitors developed a range of impressions that influenced the perceptions they developed.

These impressions were developed by visitors observing the animals, their range of activities

and the enclosures in which they were displayed. Robert Wolf and Barbara Tymitz (1981)

suggested that once people were in the zoo environment, learning was unavoidable and

although mainly subtle, this learning occurred mainly through observation and subsequent

interpretation. The visiting public generally considered education as the most important role

of the zoo. Essentially, learning can be thought of as a journey from one point to another.

Consequently, to be effective, it is important to assess the starting point and to evaluate the

end point of such an experience. Zoo visitors brought with them a wide range of values,

attitudes and perceptions that had been developed from a variety of different backgrounds and

cultures. These visitors arrived with empathy for some animals and dislike for others.

Aversion might have been developed from some unknown fear, or phobia, which had

governed their reactions. International visitors, on arrival, often immediately headed towards

287

the koala enclosure, since these animals were among the best known Australian natives, and

were commonly regarded as being ‘lovable, cute, cuddly little creatures’. Visitors rarely

headed directly towards the reptile house to make close analysis of animals that were often

considered a threat to human life and where the common attitudinal response was to despise

the ‘scary, horrible, nasty cold-blooded creature’.

The results revealed something of the complex nature of the relationships that existed

between animals held in the zoo and the viewing public who came to see them. Zoo visitors

tended to perceive the animals as happy, well cared for and attractive to look at, and they

believed most enclosures were clean and naturalistic. Most respondents considered that it was

important to create as natural a habitat as possible, which supports the conclusion reached by

Bronwyn Burton and Jennifer Ford (1991) that naturalistic settings lead to more positive

responses towards the animals.

In terms of their actual visits to the zoo, viewers considered that recreational activities

and entertainment were the most important components of the visit. Although they rated the

cleanliness of the zoo highest, they also regarded highly the zoo as a learning venue.

Enclosure features, such as cleanliness and well-kept appearance, were regarded as more

important to visitors than animal behavioural and activity patterns. The lowest level of

satisfaction related to items supplied to enrich the lives of various animals, although this was

linked to these enrichment items not being observed or being misunderstood, a topic that is

discussed further in the next chapter.

Visitors showed a desire to develop their knowledge and understanding of the

different exhibits that they viewed. Packer and Ballantyne (2002), who studied three different

leisure settings, illustrated the importance of learning for visitors. Although people were

attracted to zoos because of their recreational appeal, they perceived that the zoo presented the

opportunity to develop a better understanding of nature. The way in which visitors

constructed meaning from their visit to the zoo was greatly influenced by their previous

knowledge, thoughts, attitudes and interests. The complex interplay between what visitors

brought with them to the zoo, and what they took away, ensured that zoo visits were personal

experiences. This provided the potential for significant learning within the zoo environment.

A basic requirement for interpretation and learning is that the viewer must make a choice to

be involved and participate. Once the viewer’s thoughts have effectively been attracted and

held by some action of the animal, then their attention can be redirected towards other more

288

detailed information, allowing learning to take place. This curiosity about animal activity

differed from person to person, and it remained entirely the choice of the viewer to become

actively involved with the exhibit.

The World Zoo Conservation Strategy (IUDZG, 1993) emphasised that the use of a

variety of educational techniques, combined with knowledge, creativity and inventiveness can

make zoos highly interesting, attractive and effective places for education. Throughout the

progress of this research, interpretive areas were developed in both zoos. In Adelaide, this

area utilised the old historic elephant house; while the new area at Taronga was developed as

part of the new elephant exhibit (Plate 6.25). As these new displays helped impress on

visitors the crucial link between the past and the present, they provided the opportunity to

open a new world of curiosity and interest in the natural world. Being interactive, they

provided the opportunity for the visitor to develop meaning and understanding from their

experiences, their imagination, their memories and their fantasies. As such they formed the

very basis for understanding and learning in the zoo environment.

Plate 6.25: The interpretive area in the new elephant enclosure at Taronga Zoo. Prior to 1976, this area was previously a miniature fairground where the elephants gave rides to the public. Featured below the photograph on the wall is one of the old specially constructed saddles, which were used to carry up to ten people at a time.